Taiwan Strait war scenario impossible

Politics Taiwan Politics
1

TaiwanCowboy, on another thread, one he started, seems to think this might make a good thread on its own. So here’s the issue.

Taiwan Strait war scenario myths abound

etaiwannews.com/Opinion/2005 … 805839.htm

Is this guy Monte Bullard correct?

SUMMARY:

Many analysts assume that “use of force” would include some form of invasion by mainland troops - an assumption that appears in nearly all scenarios.

This assumption has been a key factor in the decision to sell U.S. arms to Taiwan and in contingency planning about when and how the United States might come to Taiwan’s aid.

Two weaknesses in this assumption cause faulty analyses:

one involves China’s principal goal for the use of force and

the other involves the likelihood of various strategic scenarios.

<<<<TAIWANCOWBOY WROTE:
"cola -
Interesting article you post.
…I think your post would be a good item for discussion in its own thread.
Mr. Bullard does bring another perspective to the mainland-Taiwan riddle. He presents, in rather short form, another scenario. Possibly no less plausible than the scenario detailed by Mr. Minnick.
Both, I think, are worthy of consideration. >>>>>

2

[quote]Is this guy Monte Bullard correct?
[/quote]

NO!

He is one of the “infatuated with China” crowd that I alluded to in the previous thread. Other articles I found by him sound like paid advertisements for the PLA. Heres one in praise of the anti-secession law:

http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/syndicate/bullard032105.html

There are several other similar articles available.

He should also have mentioned that one of China’s strategies is to lull Taiwan into a false sense of security, with the help of willing accomplices like himself. Maybe he honestly believes that an invasion is extremely unlikely, but it is nothing short of idiocy to imply that it is impossible and should not be prepared for.

BTW, Great start for a new thread.

3

[quote=“rotorman”]

He is one of the “infatuated with China” crowd that I alluded to in the previous thread. Other articles I found by him sound like paid advertisements for the PLA.

He should also have mentioned that one of China’s strategies is to lull Taiwan into a false sense of security, with the help of willing accomplices like himself. Maybe he honestly believes that an invasion is extremely unlikely, but it is nothing short of idiocy to imply that it is impossible and should not be prepared for.

BTW, Great start for a new thread.[/quote]

Good research, rotorman! Maybe this guy is a paid China lobbyist, and this is his quiet way of misleading people around the world, a fifth columnist so to speak. If you find out anymore about him, let us know here.

4

I was hesitant in mentioning Mr. Bullards background, but I am glad it has come out.
His record is one of political gaming. Anything he puts forth must be taken with that understanding.
And frankly I personally think he is a useful tool for the PRC. And others have come to that conclusion. Thus his lack of any position of importance for quite a few years.

5

Here’s an online book by Bullard:

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/other/straittalk.htm

6

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]I was hesitant in mentioning Mr. Bullards background, but I am glad it has come out.
His record is one of political gaming. Anything he puts forth must be taken with that understanding.
And frankly I personally think he is a useful tool for the PRC. And others have come to that conclusion. Thus his lack of any position of importance for quite a few years.[/quote]

So the editors at the Taiwan News, who published his article above, should be warned that they are reprinting the ramblings of a China lobbyist and is not to be trusted. I wonder if they know.

I did a little Internet research today and this is what I discovered:

[Dr. Monte Bullard, who is around 70 years old and has been dealing with these ROC-PRC issues for over 45 years, is certainly not a ‘‘panda hugger’’ or a paid spy
for China. His faithful readers say he tries to be as objective as possible on
the Taiwan Strait issue, although even he admits he has been criticized by proponents of both sides.

According to his biography, he spent six years in Taiwan and might be even considered a protege of the most
anti-communist person in Taiwan, ROC Gen. Wang Sheng.

Bullard also spent two years in
Beijing as U.S. Army attache. According to news reports, he is definitely not infatuated with communist China (the PRC).
Since he was a career military officer before becoming an adjunct professor at the
Monterey Institute of International Studies, he (in the course of his work) saw hundreds of plans and
scenarios about an invasion of Taiwan and apparently felt nearly
all were flawed because they did not consider political and economic factors.

He once told a reporter: “I know people – in fact, I have relatives on both sides from my late wife’s
family-- on both sides of the issue and have tried to place myself in a kind of ‘mediator role.’ Since there are few absolutes, I’m sure there are plenty of things I have
written that those who fully support Taiwan independence only would
disagree with.”

Bullard once told a reporter that “Taiwan independence is not necessary because
national borders have become less relevant in the international system, and it
is just not practical. Like many things in the real world, we have to find
compromises, if we are to avoid war. My bottom line is the same as official U.S. policy. I don’t care if Taiwan is independent or unified with China, as long as it is done peacefully.”]

7

I am sure he is every bit as commited to being fair and honest as Dan Rather was.

You can put lipstick on a sow, but it’s still a pig. Anyone who writes articles in support of the anti-secession law is a China supporter. Anyone who says an attack from China is impossible is a fool, no matter how well educated he might be.

What matters is not what Bullard says about himself, or what his fans say. The proof is in the articles he writes, articles intended to sway readers’ opinions. The article that started this thread and all of the others I found from him are decidedly pro China.

8

Anyone who says an attack from China is impossible given Taiwan moves to independence is a fool.

Anyone who says an attack from China is forthcoming given Taiwan keeps the status quo is also a fool.

Interestingly, advocates of Taiwan independence are fools under both of the above.

9

Bullard, I think makes a point in saying that China intends to attack Taiwan in other ways than a politically unpopular direct attack, and even if it did would then do it under the guise of trying to make Taiwan talk (yes even though its China’s preconditions that halts any negotiations).

I think he presents a China much more dangerous and cunning than a simple despotic country intent on a decapitation attack which will destroy it in the eyes of the public the way Tianamen Square did.

Bullard doesn’t ask us to disarm at all, he merely says we should watch out for the other tricks from China as well.

10

huh? that article was so dumb,

thats crap, so if Beijing made a law stating they would attack Taiwanese if they continue to drink bubble tea flavours not offered in China, or wear the colour Green, than its the Taiwanese’s fault for pusing the indep. envelope by drikning non-chinese bubble tea ??